Mike the Usurper wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

And if I were a university, I wouldn't count a course that said Thomas Jefferson was the anti-christ as something worthwhile either.

The Jefferson quote is over the top, but I don't see this quoted content as being grounds to refuse credit. You may be required to understand Thomas Jefferson in order to get into college, but you should not be required to like him. In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes. If that is the case it will take a lot more then a few quotes to demonstrate it.

U: I did some more digging. This quotation sounds like the UC system might have some reasonable objections:

For example, a course titled "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" was rejected because it used an anthology as its only textbook — whereas UC requires that students read assigned works in their entirety; anthologies may not be the only required texts in literature courses.

On the other hand, the complaint includes some troubling statements which seem to indicate that UC has a problem with the perspective of the content rather then the content itself:

As a result of the orientation/approach of the texts in question, which expressly prioritize religion over science, a course relying on these texts as core instructional materials does not meet the faculty’s criteria for the UC subject “d” laboratory science requirement.

IMHO, denying a student entrance into public colleges soley because you don't agree with the religious point of view of the content they learned in private high school classes is precisely equivelent to requiring public high school classes to be taught from a religious point of view. It attempts to use the power of the state to force other people to accept a perspective on religion. That is an affront to the First Amendment.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

And if I were a university, I wouldn't count a course that said Thomas Jefferson was the anti-christ as something worthwhile either.

The Jefferson quote is over the top, but I don't see this quoted content as being grounds to refuse credit. You may be required to understand Thomas Jefferson in order to get into college, but you should not be required to like him. In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes. If that is the case it will take a lot more then a few quotes to demonstrate it.

Well that's why it's in court. They'll get more than a few quotes, they'll get the whole book.

Decius wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes.

Is that, in fact, the criteria, or are you simply stating that it ought to be? I don't disagree, but I'm curious.

I think this case is far more interesting than the ID movement which, though well supported and high profile, is also, i find, transparent and simpleminded (which is not the same as saying it's not a threat of course). This, however, raises some interesting questions.

At the risk of falling into the trap of basing an argument on too little information, I've some comments.

The example you found of the UC rejecting the course on the basis of the text being an anthology vs. a full novel sounds like a fairly arbitrary one. Certainly it's the school's right to determine that anthologies don't suffice, and base acceptance on that determination, but it doesn't speak to the subtleties of this issue.

The "troubling" example you found is far more fascinating because it does potentially insinuate that a book which teaches science from the standpoint of Christian beliefs cannot adequately teach science. That dangerously close to saying that Christianity and Science are incompatible (which is, of course, hogwash) though not precisely the same. It depends a great deal on how the material is presented, in my opinion. If the scientific method is left intact and the physical principles presented fully, including the mathematical proofs behind them, then that's fine. If for even one moment, the books resorts to a "because God ordained it so" as a *reason* some physical principle exists, without indicating either that there's higher level math required to understand it or that presently we don't understand it, then it is doing the students a disservice.

The question, as you say, comes down to whether it's the religious *perspective* that UC is rejecting or if, in fact, these courses fail to adhere to reasonable educational standards. In fact, it calls into question the entire concept of what standards *are* reasonable, which is the greater prize in this battle, I think. For me, I think, that comes down to two things. The first is if the Christian perspective is the *only* one taught. It's perfectly fine to discuss the problems that Twain or Dickinson had with God or with Religion. I'll even say it's good insofar as that's much a part of who they were. However, if in so doing, the texts or instructors leave out the influence these authors had or fail to analyze the work in historical context and so on, then stu... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

k wrote:
Is that, in fact, the criteria, or are you simply stating that it ought to be? I don't disagree, but I'm curious.

I'm shooting from the hip. IANAL.

The example you found of the UC rejecting the course on the basis of the text being an anthology vs. a full novel sounds like a fairly arbitrary one.

I thought so at first but anthologies are usually used in elementary school. In high school they expect you to read actual books. Its possible that the complete text of all of the books you ought to read is in the anthology, but its unlikely.

In fact, it calls into question the entire concept of what standards *are* reasonable, which is the greater prize in this battle, I think. For me, I think, that comes down to two things. The first is if the Christian perspective is the *only* one taught.

Your discussion of the fine line here is very good...